Originally Posted by
PLeblond
ETOPS is not just a question of fuel available. Both the metal needs to be certified as does the operator. There are a myriad of additional things to the MEL and both crews and maintenance need special training. Even diversion airports need to be certified for ETOPS operations..
The point isn't if it would make sense for Rouge to do it today, it is whether the Airbus can reach Hawaii. Which I still maintain it can - the A321 may suffer restrictions semi-often but with the A319 it would be easy.
Here is what an AC pilot in 2011 had to say about it. And since then, the A321 received sharklets and has become more capable. The SFO route he mentions is using 2001-era A321s, which are less capable than Rouge's.
Note what a non-issue ETOPS fuel and alternates are.
LAX-HNL is 2221 nm. We fly YYZ-SFO with a 174 seat A321, with one ACT. It is the longest route we presently fly with that equipment, at 1963 nm. I pulled out a recent flight plan and see that actual flight plan miles is closer to 2100 nm, and the aircraft can leave YYZ with about 5000 Kgs open weight, with about 1500Kgs open in the fuel tanks.
So yes, in my opinion, the A321 is capable of SFO or LAX to HNL. However, with respect to ETOPS operations, some additional considerations are required.
Alternate considerations are not a huge concern. A west coast alternate (for return) is easy, lots of options ... same with a destination alternate. It is a long island chain, and if there were no legal alternates within the chain, then there would be a huge impact for any aircraft, not just an A321.
Engine failure considerations also, are not a huge concern. Believe it or not, specific fuel consumption (per mile) is not much more, in fact in some instances a little less, on one engine than two. Normal "drift down" profiles are maintained with one engine at MCT.
The aircraft would have to be certified for ETOPS 180.
The only consideration I do not have access to is depressurization alternates and fuel. Namely, if the aircraft had a depressurization at the worst possible spot, it would have to carry fuel to fly at 10,000 feet to an acceptable alternate. We do not have access to that in our planning computer for the A321. But for reference, for a B767-300ER flying YVR-HNL, this fuel is 600 Kgs extra. I would guess it would be about half that for an A321.
So my guess is yes, the aircraft could do it.